Beyond interest: how Americans view political socialization

Abstract: While there is a great deal of focus on the partisan divide in American politics, we identify a divide that is often overlooked: the divide between those for whom politics has a central role in their lives and those who dislike politics. We argue that this divide leads to more profound differences in the electorate than partisanship. We develop a new measure which allows us to move beyond interest and to capture the extent to which following politics is a way of life. This measure, we demonstrate, is a better predictor of affective polarization than partisan strength or ideological extremity. We apply our measure of “politics as life” to studies of political socialization. Relying on experiments and survey data, we demonstrate that the extent to which people perceive politics as a way of life has profound effects on their beliefs about whether children should be taught to be politically active. We also show that while most people do not believe that politics should play a role in their child’s choice of a marriage partner, people high on our measure are more likely to oppose inter-party marriage. Our work suggests that while a (vocal) minority of Americans does believe in the primacy of politics, a majority is repelled by the idea that politics should be important to them. To capture these dynamics, however, one must look beyond partisanship and consider people’s perceptions of politics beyond interest.

About: MISC is partnering with The Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship to present a panel of experts to discuss the Canadian Federal Elections prior to the vote on October 21, 2019. The panel will feature Marc-André Bodet, Claire Durand, Allison Harell, MISC’s Eakin Fellow Melanee Thomas and will be moderated by the Dean of Arts, Antonia Maioni. The speakers will discuss the parties’ respective campaigns, as well their predictions for the election.

The panel will most likely reconvene later in the semester for a post-election panel, to revisit their predictions, and discuss what the results mean for Canada’s prospective future.

The workshop is invite only. Some travel funds will be available for speakers.

About : How can artificial intelligence be oriented toward the common good? The belief in AI for good has widespread acceptance in the industry and among governments. Declarations from around the globe—Canada, China, South Korea, France, and more—call for the development of AI to have a social purpose. But what is that purpose?

The workshop seeks to develop a vision for a commons-based approach to the future of AI. It is an intervention to develop democratic approaches to digital disruption and understand transformations in citizen engagement. The workshop will produce a public report on the possibility of an AI as well as a series of video interviews capturing the discussion.

In this workshop, we invite you to reflect broadly on artificial intelligence and its relation to the commons as you consider the following questions:

What should an AI Commons be?

How could a commons-based approach guide the development of AI?

How does a commons approach differ from proposed ethical or rights-based frameworks?

How could the development of AI today—including the infrastructure and knowledge at its foundation—become a commons?

What forms of collective action and governance would be necessary? What movements and efforts already exist?

What latent commons or undercommons might we find in thinking about AI?

Could AI reshape how we think about the commons, leading to new theories or practices?

How might related (or unrelated) approaches to the commons be understood through AI and the commons (e.g., making kin, new materialism, infrastructures of care, or platform cooperativism)?

What histories and instances of the commons does an AI commons require for context and inspiration?

How might we imagine a future common world for the machines, environments, humans, and other life drawn together by the industrial efforts around AI?

How can humans, AI, and other agents collaborate equitably in these commons?

How might AI reproduce sustainably within the natural commons, unseating extractive and settler approaches to common worlds?

Refuge beyond reach: how rich democracies repel asylum seekers

Abstract: The core of the asylum regime is the principle ofnon-refoulement that prohibits governments from sending refugees back to their persecutors. Governments attempt to evade this legal obligation to which they have explicitly agreed by manipulating territoriality. A remote control strategy of “extra-territorialization” pushes border control functions hundreds or even thousands of kilometers beyond the state’s territory. Simultaneously, states restrict access to asylum and other rights enjoyed by virtue of presence on a state’s territory, by making micro-distinctions down to the meter at the border line in a process of “hyper-territorialization.” Refuge beyond Reach analyzes remote controls since the 1930s in Palestine, North America, Europe, and Australia to identify the origins of different forms of remote control, explain how they work together as a system of control, and establish the conditions that enable or constrain them in practice. It argues that foreign policy issue linkages and transnational advocacy networks promoting a humanitarian norm that is less susceptible to the legal manipulation of territoriality constrains remote controls more than the law itself. The degree of constraint varies widely by the technique of remote control. FitzGerald engages fundamental theoretical questions about the extent to which norms and institutions shape state action, the collision between sovereignty and universalist values, and the shifting articulation of governments, territories, and rights-bearing individuals.